Prasad Macfab I P Ltd., Pune V. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 10(1), Pune

ITA 130/PUN/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Prasad Macfab India Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, contesting the disallowance of depreciation claims by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Pune, the respondent. The appeal was against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to disallow depreciation on certain capital assets for the assessment year 2016-2017. The Tribunal noted the absence of the assessee's representation during the hearings and acknowledged the potential disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to a decision to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 137336 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: AllowedAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-12-2022
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; TDS
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B” : PUNE BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.No.130/PUN./2022 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Prasad Macfab India Pvt. Ltd., Rajveer Industrial Estate, Gat no.130, Ganesh Nagar, Talawade, Pune-411 062. Maharashtra. PAN AAECP41221B vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Pratyaksha Kar Bhavan, Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Near Akurdi Railway Station, Pune – 411 004. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of Hearing : 20.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 04.01.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. This assessee’s appeal for the assessment year 2016-2017, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi’s order dated 17.12.2021, in Din & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037889710 (1), involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Case called twice. None appear’s at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly heard ex-parte. 3. The assessee raises the following twin effective substantive grounds in the instant appeal : 2 ITA.No.130/PUN./2022 Prasad Macfab India Pvt. Ltd., Pune. 1. “Whether the Id. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the order of the Id.AO thereby disallowing depreciation, to the extent of 10% on 16,06,656/-, i.e., Rs.1,60,665/-, as claimed by the Assessee. 2. Whether the ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the AO's order disallowing the depreciation of 10% on Capital Asset Addition amounting to Rs.13,92,928/-, as claimed by the Assessee, and adding it to the Total Income of the Assessee. 3. Whether the Id. CIT(A) was justified in not giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant. 4. The Assessee craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any Ground of Appeal at the time of hearing.” 4. Mr. Jasnani invited our attention to the detailed lower appellate discussion affirming the Assessing Officer’s action on both these counts as under : “5.2. Ground 3 pertains to the issue of excess depreciation claimed @ 10% on Rs.16,06,656/- which works out to Rs.1,60,665- and was disallowed by the AO. The Appellant vide letter dated 13/11/2021 has sought time for 30 days to furnish a detailed submission· on this issue. However, the Appellant has failed to furnish any details/explanation in this regard 3 ITA.No.130/PUN./2022 Prasad Macfab India Pvt. Ltd., Pune. even after 30 days. Therefore, in absence of any details /explanation coming from the Appellant on the issue, I uphold the action of the AO and this ground of appeal is dismissed. 5.3. Ground 4 pertains to the addition of Rs.13,92,928/- under depreciation claim by applying TDS disallowance provisions to the capital assets. The Appellant vide letter dated 13/11/2021 has sought time for 30 days to furnish a detailed submission on this issue. However, the Appellant has failed to furnish any details I explanation in this regard even after 30 days. Therefore, in absence of any details/explanation, coming from the Appellant on the issue, I uphold the action of the AO and this ground of appeal is dismissed.” 5. The Revenue’s case accordingly is that both the learned lower authorities have rightly disallowed the assessee’s claim of depreciation @ 10%, involving varying sums of Rs.1,60,665/- and Rs.13,92,928/-, respectively. 6. We hardly see any reason to express our agreement with both these disallowances. Mr. Jasnani could not dispute the clinching fact that the lower appeal herein in issue had taken place during the peak of covid-2019 4 ITA.No.130/PUN./2022 Prasad Macfab India Pvt. Ltd., Pune. pandemic outbreak and, therefore, the possibility of the assessee having communication gaps and lack of office support could not be altogether ruled out. Faced with the situation, we conclude that larger interest of justice shall be made in case the learned Assessing Officer once again examines both these depreciation issues as per law preferably within three hearing of opportunities in consequential proceedings. Ordered accordingly. 7. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 04.01.2023. Sd/- Sd/- [DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE] [SATBEER SINGH GODARA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune, Dated 04 th January, 2023 VBP/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The Ld. CIT(A) concerned. 4. The CIT concerned 5. D.R. ITAT, Pune “B” Bench, Pune 6. Guard File. //By Order// Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune Benches Pune.